Template talk:Weapon
I am thinking about using an alternative template for the individual weapon articles. I thought I would use a template to do this as it would remove any need to repeat the formatting information (thus saving space), and allow us to change it for all weapons at a moment's notice. If those who frequently contribute here (Aus, Def, Klingon) can have a look and let me know if they approve, I will get to it. Enigmatic 02:57, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) Great idea! -- Austicke 06:28, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) Me personally, I'd remove the "align=center" stuff. The table info looks like it'd sit better up against the left-edge. Centering it kinda requires a column title to make it look correct & adds alot of apparent blank space between the row title & the actual data (as opposed to jamming the blank space on the right-hand end). --Defunc7 08:37, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) well, me personally actually did it without really waiting. Bit hastey probably. But anyway... I think the bolding and cell shading together is a bit much but I've actually left it alone... for now. I'd remove the shading since it has some funky compatibility issues with browsers & we should at least have some uniformity in that. :p--Defunc7 09:13, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) Well my opinion was not ask for, but Im going to have a say any way. :P Yes its a good idea, would save you some time. -- Pstarky 09:17, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) * Muchly appreciate the feedback, and yes it will save a lot of time on things which have a standard (ie armour as well later on). I do however think the shading "and" bolding are required personally... you have to set it aside from the rest otherwise it looks as if your "headers" are the same as your data. If it was just bolded I could live with it, if it was just shaded I think the text would be drowned out. This is personal preference of course and the fact you only have to change the Template is where the real beauty comes in. Only 1 change and its done. So far I have only tested it on Halberd, but will eventually go through the whole set time permitting. Enigmatic 15:44, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) * I've been messing about with it further, this time the top table bit. this is how currently small items (1 inventory sqr) display: notice how the picture sits slightly away and slightly higher than the actual text, I kinda felt it looked a bit misaligned (it technically is, because the font is nudged down slightly due to the table usage), so I fiddled with it & came up with: I kinda think this one is better because the things look more aligned (the image is actually in the table with the text now). There is a problem.... This only works for 1-square items, anything large and the text starts moving down the image (nesting table just reproduces the original problem, and the text tries to default to a middle-height otherwise. I cant think of anything else to keep all the text right at the top without wandering into dodgy browser supported areas). So we either have mis-aligned small items, or we can have 2 templates (1 for small, 1 for everything else) or we ignore the whole thing :/ --Defunc7 16:56, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) * I think 2 templates would be very bad, 1 template with a "bit" of misalignment really isn't a big issue. Also though, can't we have a bit of "space" between some of these things? It looks very "cluttered" to have everything all butting up against each other. Even if its only a few pixels, nothing else on the website seems to bunch together like this. Enigmatic 17:07, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *kick arse! raah! etc.. 1 template to cover both the nudged-up small items & to produce the same result as we currently get with larger items: -- Sauron of the Templates! 17:43, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) * Kudos my friend! And we only had to do it in a single place as well... all will now benefit... as soon as I get around to fixing them ;-P Enigmatic 18:39, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *swapped out old template: --Defunc7 19:07, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *The template doesn't seem to work right with some entries. For example, on longbow, the name and description run together. -- Austicke * Looks ok this end... is it browser related? (Latest IE here) Enigmatic 20:43, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *It could be. I'm using Firefox. Here's how it looks: page using Firefox]] Yeah, I checked Internet Explorer, and it looks fine. Yeesh, people still use that program? :) -- Austicke 21:07, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) * How does the talk page look in firefox? Looking at the "old" way, does it look alright? (might be worth doing a preview on the old format or something to check). Enigmatic 21:19, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *Yeah, below is a screenshot of this page. The first way looks fine. -- Austicke 21:36, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) * Can you try looking at the previous version which was before the change and see if it looks any different? I think it is only 1 revert but I dont want to revert it and it not be the right one. Enigmatic 21:40, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *I'm not sure what you mean, Enigmatic. Can you post a link? -- Austicke 21:43, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *Try it now. Compare Dart to Halberd and see how you go. Enigmatic 21:48, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *Yeah, they both look fine now. Thanks! -- Austicke 21:49, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT) *gah, I just double check and I had the / the wrong way round for the closed br tags. The offending article in a fixed version of my template: the problem isn't really browser related, it's just that IE isn't as strict with it's code (u can have overlapping tags pairs & stuff) so I didn't initially pick up the error. The reason it only showed up on the longbow one is that the longbow has a br/ in the text, which conflicted with the /br in the template (and basically broke them). br/ is the correct form or br / with a gap. There's some reaon why the gap varient exists but I can't remember why, browsers again. --Defunc7 05:50, 6 Oct 2005 (PDT) *Ah, I see. It wasn't just longbow though; I think they were all messed up. -- Austicke 08:47, 6 Oct 2005 (PDT) *well the br/ should fix it for all of them unless I'm completely wrong about the cause.--Defunc7 09:40, 6 Oct 2005 (PDT) * Nice catch... damnable IE, *always* working... curse you! Enigmatic 15:25, 6 Oct 2005 (PDT) *swapped out again, someone without a lazy browser go look. I've already got a couple of people to check, but they're a bit flakey.--Defunc7 16:08, 6 Oct 2005 (PDT) *Looks good to me (on Firefox). -- Austicke 16:37, 6 Oct 2005 (PDT) *Looks good to me on IE and Safari. -- Pstarky 05:26, 7 Oct 2005 (PDT)